Year: 2007

Next Monday appears to be the date for former Star Tribune editor and publisher Joel Kramer to reveal his plans for the launch of a professionally edited and reported online newspaper. From his vacation home in Montana, Kramer, who knows the tricks of the information-peddling trade, is not offering any new details beyond what has already leaked since his meeting here last week with likely editors and writers.

Kramer did confirm what has been known. Namely, that he has hired former Star Tribune deputy managing editor Roger Buoen. He also confirmed he has hired long-time St. Paul Pioneer Press editor Don Effenberger. Asked about the estimate of $850,000 on his fund-raising to date, Kramer confirmed that figure, adding, “More.”

Beyond that, Kramer declined to spoil his own unveiling.

What we do know is that Kramer has gone from a non-profit business model to a for-profit and back now to non-profit. At one point, he had a tentative deal to partner with The Rake owners Tom Bartel and Kris Henning. In fact, he approached Bartel and Henning with an interest in buying The Rake outright, but apparently backed off that idea rather quickly.

Kramer’s plan, I’m told by sources who asked not to be identified, includes some kind of partnering arrangement with various local publishing entities, possibly including the community journalism site, TC Daily Planet, The Rake, and Minnesota Public Radio. (Rake publisher Bartel says he hasn’t spoken with Kramer in the last month.)

The MPR angle, which Kramer would not confirm, is intriguing if only because Kramer apparently still favors some kind of membership model a la public broadcasting. His pitch to the dozen and a half former Twin Cities newspaper journalists at his condo last week mentioned aiming the online paper at a potential audience of 100,000 to 200,000 avid news consumers, which essentially describes MPR’s audience.

If Kramer has indeed cut a deal with MPR and MPR president Bill Kling, my first two questions are whether Kling is providing any start-up capital or resources, and why? Kling’s name has not been mentioned among Kramer’s primary investors. More to the point, the MPR-like audience of 100,000 to 200,000 avid news consumers already has MPR’s website, so what additional features is Kramer planning to offer, particularly if his staff of reporters/content-providers are all freelancers?

Kramer’s desire to launch a serious news site has been the topic of considerable discussion among the cities’ journalists in recent months, many of whom are currently seeking new opportunities, after several rounds of buyouts at both daily papers. Moreover, the frustration with what some regard as the self-limiting ethos of daily newspapers has people hoping Kramer is open to the freer tone and technological possibilities — podcasts, video, etc. — of an online news service.

In his pitch last week, Kramer mentioned voiceofsandiego.org as one example of what he hopes he/they can pull off. “I think he said he hoped we could do something better,” said someone who was present.

The general reaction from several of those in attendance was one of eagerness for the game. Their lingering questions revolved around how well Kramer is preparing for those supplementary tech factors — audio and video reporting; whether he has or can draw in enough conservative writers to provide a healthy balance to whatever commentary he plans to offer (if you know any righties who aren’t fact-averse and can hold a reader’s attention for five minutes, have them contact Kramer after next Monday); and if he can pull off something fresher and more interesting than either daily is currently offering?

By all indications, Kramer will not be offering mortgage-paying wages, at least at the start. But the impression I get is that many current and former newspaper writers regard daily online journalism as an inevitability and like the idea of being part of a pioneering concept enough that they’ll work very cheap … for a while.

As counterpoints to mainstream thinking goes, it doesn’t get much starker than Bill Moyers’ take on Karl Rove’s career and record in this past Friday’s edition of “Bill Moyers’ Journal”.

Note the particular point Moyers makes on Rove’s exploitation of religion and religious bigotry for naked political effect and ask yourself why if, A. Moyers is correct, and it seems no secret that he is, then B. Why haven’t other pundits and political analysts mentioned the same thing? (Moyers mentions the recent “revelation” that Rove regards himself as an agnostic).

The exploitation of religious superstition and religious bigotry for political gain has to rank as one the most cynical and dangerous stratagems in human history, and yet supposedly worldly mainstream reporters and pundits either ignore it, in Rove’s case, or roll it all together as part of a fair and balanced tribute to Rove’s tactical “genius”.

Do you sense a combination of fear and pandering?